Skip to main content

Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Household Surveys

  • Chapter
Elicitation of Preferences

Abstract

Cognitive psychology has identified and studied extensively a number of cognitive anomalies that may be important for the assessment of the economic status of individuals and households. In particular the use of brackets to elicit information about income and assets in surveys of households can interact with acquiescence bias and anchoring to cause bias in the estimates of the distributions of income and assets. This paper uses data from the Health and Retirement Study and the Asset and Health Dynamics Study to find that, as predicted by psychology, bracketing can produce bias in population estimates of assets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Chapman, G. B. and E. J. Johnson. (1994). “The Limits of Anchoring,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 7, 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couch, Arthur and Kenneth Keniston. (1960). “Yeasayers and Naysayers: Agreeing Response Set as a Personality Variable,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60 (2), 151–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoynes, Hilary, Michael Hurd, and Harish Chand. (1998). “Household Wealth of the Elderly under Alternative Imputation Procedures.” In David Wise (ed.), Inquiries in the Economics of Aging, pp. 229–254. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, Michael D. (1997). “A Model of the Effects of Anchoring on Population Distributions,” Mimeo, RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, Michael D. et al. (1998). “Consumption and Saving Balances of the Elderly: Experimental Evidence on Survey Response Bias.” In D. Wise (ed.), Frontiers in the Economics of Aging, pp. 353–387. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Douglas N. and Samuel Messick. (1958). “Content and Style in Personality Assessment,” Psychological Bulletin 55 (4), 243–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacowitz, K. E. and Kahneman, D. (1995). “Measures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, 1161–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juster, F. Thomas and Richard Suzman. (1995). “An Overview of the Health and Retirement Study,” Journal of Human Resources 30, S7 - S56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klayman, Joshua and Young-Won Ha. (1987). “Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Information in Hypothesis Testing,” Psychological Review 94 (2), 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W. and T. Freund. (1983). “The Freezing and Unfreezing of Lay-Inferences: Effects on Impressional Primacy, Ethnic Stereotyping, and Numerical Anchoring,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19, 448–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locander, William B. and John P. Burton. (1976). “The Effect of Question Form on Gathering Income Data by Telephone,” Journal of Marketing Research, XIII, 189–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E. C. (1989). Bias in Quantifying Judgements, Hove ( U.K.) and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, John J. (1983). “Reviving the Problem of Acquiescent Response Bias,” The Journal of Social Psychology 121, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, Howard and Stanley Presser. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, James P. (1995). “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Wealth,” Journal of Human Resources 30, S158 - S183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, Fritz and Thomas Mussweiler. (1997). “Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (3), 437–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1974). “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D. et al. (1996). “A New Look at Anchoring Effects: Basic Anchoring and Its Antecedents,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 125, 387–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hurd, M.D., Kapteyn, A. (1999). Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Household Surveys. In: Fischhoff, B., Manski, C.F. (eds) Elicitation of Preferences. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1406-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1406-8_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5776-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1406-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics